Acting Innocent and “Playing Dumb” as Manipulation Tactics
Feigning ignorance is an effective tactic that manipulates the person confronting the behavior into having doubts about the legitimacy of the issue they’re trying to bring to the other person’s attention.
This article is the seventh in a series of posts on habitual behaviors common to individuals of disturbed character. These behaviors interfere with the internalization of pro-social values and standards of conduct as well as serving as effective tactics of manipulation, control, and impression management. Some of the behaviors we’ve explored thus far include Shaming and Guilt-Tripping, Minimization, and Evasion and Diversion:
- “Manipulation via Shaming and Guilt-Tripping: Using the Conscience of the Neurotic against Them”
- “Minimization: Trivializing Behavior as a Manipulation Tactic”
- “Evasion and Diversion as Manipulation Tactics”
When disordered characters are confronted about problematic behaviors, they are apt to employ a select group of tactics to avoid responsibility and manipulate others. Two of the most common of such tactics are feigning ignorance (i.e. “playing dumb”) and/or feigning innocence.
Many times, when your gut is telling you that you’re being taken advantage of, played for a fool, or simply being mistreated, and you confront a disordered character about it, they’ll act like they have no idea what you’re talking about. They’ll pretend to be totally unaware and in the dark. Sometimes, when you have received information from a reliable source about something you suspect they’ve been doing, they’ll pretend they have no earthly idea where anyone could have come up with such an idea about them. Feigning ignorance is an effective tactic that manipulates the person confronting the behavior into having doubts about the legitimacy of the issue they’re trying to bring to the other person’s attention. It invites them to see themselves as a false accuser and victimizer, instead of being the victim of the disordered character’s malicious behavior.
The technique of feigning ignorance often goes hand in hand with the tactic of feigning innocence. When disordered characters use this technique they will either simply act like (or loudly protest) that they have done nothing wrong and have nothing to feel guilty about or ashamed of. If there’s no way they can deny doing something you can prove they did, then they might claim that they had no malicious intent and that any harm that came of what they did was unintended. This tactic serves the purpose of obscuring the true character of their actions.
Feigning ignorance and innocence are effective ways to deny malevolent intention. They’re effective tactics, especially when used on neurotic individuals, for several reasons. First, when the victimizer denies malevolent intention, and appears innocent, the person confronting the problem behavior begins to feel uncomfortable in the role of unfair accuser and begins to misperceive who occupies the victimizer and victim positions. If the disturbed character can make you feel bad for indicting him, he’s half way home to successfully conning and manipulating you. Second, neurotics are prone to judging intentions as opposed to actions. They want to think of most people as good and kind and hate to think that people really harbor malevolent intentions. What’s more, they hate to think of themselves as ever acting unfairly or in a manner that brings harm to others. So, when the disordered character has them thinking that they’re the bad guy, they readily back down. That’s why, in my book In Sheep’s Clothing [Amazon-US | Amazon-UK], I advise neurotics who want to empower themselves in their potential dealings with disturbed characters to “judge actions, not intentions.”
In an earlier post, I talked about never accepting “I don’t know” for an answer when confronting disordered characters. (See “Neurosis vs. Character Disorder: Levels of Awareness”.) That’s because they’re not only keenly aware of the things they do that other people have a problem with, but they also know full well what their motivation was for doing those things. They also know that neurotics are very hesitant to believe this. That’s not only because neurotics find it uncomfortable to accept the notion that not everyone is of benign character but also because traditional psychological schools of thought have never adequately identified and correctly defined character disturbance and the kinds of behaviors typically associated with it. So I advise people who might be in relationships with disturbed characters to be aware of the tactics they frequently use to evade responsibility and manipulate others. And if there’s one thing I’ve learned well over the years, it’s that whenever you confront a disturbed character on their inappropriate behavior, you need to stay focused on those problem behaviors no matter how clueless or innocent they might act.
Other articles by Dr George Simon, PhD
This article was last reviewed by Dr Greg Mulhauser, Managing Editor on Tuesday, 10th March 2009.
The URL of this page is:
http://counsellingresource.com/features/2009/03/10/manipulation-by-acting-dumb/
10th March 2009
Hello, Dr. Simon,
Is this the same as being passive-aggressive?
10th March 2009
Thanks for the question, Mariana. No, it is not the same. Although the term is often applied, it would be erroneous to do so. Manipulative tactics like described above are very ACTIVE but veiled attempts to exploit, abuse, or control. There’s nothing passive about them. The correct term is COVERT-AGGRESSIVE, although many, including professionals use the other term. I have some prior posts on the subject. You might find the articles interesting and/or entertaining. Check the archives, as I’m not exactly sure of the titles. I think one has to do with when passive aggression is not passive and another article has to do with commonly misused psychological terms.
11th March 2009
Thanks for the reply!
11th March 2009
This one hit particularly close to home for me right now. Almost 2 years ago, I snapped out of my co-dependent and neurotic denial and finally started to “confront” (at first this meant very gently pointing out issues in an extremely sugar-coated way) my hubby about unacceptable behaviors.
He feigned innocence AND loudly protested. Once he even insisted that I “take it back”! Of course I did exactly that.
I finally got strong enough to stop backing down which resulted in a 5 month separation, at my insistence. We almost got divorced. He eventually came to realize that he did need to make changes and we got back together a little less than a year ago. I never considered him a “disturbed character”.
I’m starting to wonder now because he recently initiated a conversation in which he defended his prior unacceptable behaviors. He basically re-wrote reality, even though there was no purpose in doing so, except to once again, justify his old patterns. It’s very bizarre and troubling to me as I consider it to be imperative that we are on the same page about the roles each of us played back then.
If he truly believes that he was innocent then, was he lying before or is he truly a disturbed person or what?!
I’m sure you can’t answer this question with any certainty since you don’t know either of us. These are just the questions running through my head right now.
11th March 2009
Very good questions, Marianna. There is a difference between “neurotic denial” which is truly based in an unconscious fear to acknowledge something far to emotionally painful to bear, and the kind of re-writing of history and lying that disturbed characters do is the motivation for it. Disturbed characters can even lie to themselves. After a time, they can even come to somewhat believe their lies. The motivation for that, however, is not that there is such emotional pain over the reality of things that they just can’t bear it,, but rather because they resist changing their core beliefs about what is right and wrong and their PREFERRED ways of going about getting the things they want in life. So, when life tells them: “No, you must consider another way of looking at things and doing things,” they resist with a passion. Then, they try to re-write and re-frame things so that everyone else sees things their way. When counseling succeeds in such cases, it’s always at least in part because the counselor (and eventually both parties) have an appreciation for the very different kinds of denial and their roots. I have a couple of prior posts on this very subject.
11th March 2009
Please accept my apology for responding to “Mariana” in error.
11th March 2009
No problem, Mariana and I both comment frequently, and usually even longer than your original article! :)
11th March 2009
We did go to marriage counseling for about a year. We stopped a few months ago as things seemed to be moving along swimmingly and we had to make some budget cutbacks. We are both still in individual counseling though. We left marriage counseling with the agreement that if either of us felt it necessary, we would return. I have scheduled the appointment based on the recent developments I described in my original comment. I guess I’ll have to wait to find out if his backtracking is neurotic denial or the other more sinister re-writing history. I’m afraid he acknowledged his unacceptable behaviors and made changes while separated in order to get back together and is now starting to fall back into the same old patterns, starting with denying his previous role. Ugh.
17th March 2009
Hello,
I want to ask a question concerning a young woman at church. She has bi-polar. She shows no signs of being able to function in a normal way. If money comes her way, which it had recently, it is spent quickly and illogically.
Presently she must move from her rented home, and is apparently unable to focus on preparation to vacate. She’s depended on her husband to make the effort and plans in the past; but now he is very ill and on lots of pain medication due to a physical illness, and unable to work. They now depend on her income. They are presently in terrible pressing position and from what I gather is a permanent condition, in the past as well as now.
She is own SSI, so her budget is limited and as I mentioned before,
she spends money on things that are strange for such a limited income. She did this even while her husband worked.
She always will take from others if it is offered and is usually
on the list for free food baskets from the church. She will order
things from other members, such as Avon or Mary Kay, but does not pay for them.
She protrays herself as a victim and I wonder how much of this
is the actually bi-polar. She is impossible to help, as she stays
always in need financially/life style in some form or fashion. We’ve all tried to assist her, but she is in a chronic need for assistance. Very dramatic and always some terrible crisis in her life. Again,is her problems typical of a bi-polar person?
Thanks
17th March 2009
Thanks for the question, Barbara. It’s not really possible for me to speculate with any accuracy about a case with which I have no direct familiarity. Some of the behaviors you describe are indeed congruent with bipolar disorder. However, other conditions can also prompt similar behaviors. In addition, some of the other behaviors you describe are not necessarily typical of bipolar disorder. Also, it’s extremely rare that one diagnosis excludes all other possibilities. For example, it’s possible for a person o have another mental disorder at the same time. Again, it’s to be bipolar and to have a character disturbance or even treally difficult and inappropriate for me to speculate. Especially at this woman’s age and given the vast number of issues that could be going on, I think only a thorough diagnostic workup by an adequately trained professional could determine the problem(s).
24th March 2009
Hi Barbara,
What you mentioned about her being “in a chronic need for assistance” and everyone doing their best to help her, reminded me of a mind game that actually consists in one person being always in dire need of help and (sucessfully) managing to have everyone help him/her fullfill his/her needs which lets the person go on with his/her life without taking any responsibility for change.
It’s like a user, who lives on other people’s good intentions and voluntary assistance. Similar to what in Spanish we call a sponger. They will live on charity, and will expect everyone to excuse them if they incur in debts because they are always “poor” so how will they ever pay for their debts.
It seems to me that this woman is a keen manipulator and uses people, counting on their good heart. She doesn’t really want to solve her situation, she has learned to make a living that way, on everyone else’s expense and efforts to help.
It’s like those people who are always wasking for other people’s opinion to make an important decision and then end up saying, “Yes, but…”. They ask for other people’s opinion only to end up rejecting each and every opinion they get.
This seems to work in a similar way. She asks for help all the time, but she will not do anything to fix her financial situation.
Maybe my perpective is a bit too simplistic, but she sure looks like someone who profits from playing the victim’s role.
23rd March 2009
This information is very helpful. I have a family member who exhibits the behaviors that you’ve described exactly. It has been extremely difficult to deal with her because she keeps “rewriting” history to fit her particular need at the moment. Personally, I feel the relationship has reached a dead end, because we seem to live in alternate realities. Am I wrong? Is there hope?